DailyDirt: Not Enough Flies In My Soup, Waiter...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

It's actually somewhat difficult to avoid eating insects accidentally. Bugs (or bug parts) get into our food supply all the time, and it's not really a bad thing (unless you're a strict vegan). Some folks, though, want more insects in their food, and not just fried grasshoppers or exotic scorpions. Insect protein could be a more sustainable food source, and arguably, our distant primate relatives eat far more insects than meat from other animals like we do. Here are just a few interesting links on insects in our food.

• For over 20 years, candy lollipops with entrapped insects have been on the market. How many licks does it take to get to the insect at the center of a Hotlix lollipop? [url]
• The Starbucks Strawberry Frappuccino was once made rosy red, not with an artificial color (like Red #40), but from natural colors derived from grinding up the dried bodies of cochineal bugs The bug-based coloring was safe to eat (as long as you weren't allergic to those bugs), but Starbucks had to switch to a vegetable-based dye because people were either grossed out or vegan. [url]
• Some European researchers are trying to make insects more palatable for people, and a popular Dutch restaurant called Specktakel tries to incorporate an insect into at least one item on its daily menu. Insects are a good source of protein, and it is far less energy intensive to raise bugs than beef. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: bugs, coffee, coloring, dye, food, insects, lollipops, protein
Companies: starbucks

South Park Sued Over Big Bad Lollipop

from the imaginationland-property dept

South Park is certainly no stranger to insane copyright lawsuits. Some time ago, they survived a suit over having character Butters parody Brownmark Films' "What What (In The Butt)" music video. In that case, South Park relied on a strong Fair Use claim over what was clearly a nod to the original video.

But now we learn of a new copyright lawsuit over the inclusion of a character called the Lollipop King in South Park's Imagination Land trilogy. The claim here is as bizarre as the South Park trilogy that is allegedly infringing. A guy named Exavier Wardlaw claims he created a show years ago called The Lollipop Forest in which one of the characters, Big Bad Lollipop, is the clear inspiration for the Lollipop King South Park character. His inspiration for the lawsuit is, apparently, the rather, uh, not nice things that Trey Parker and Matt Stone subject the Lollipop King to.

In his suit, Wardlaw claims "Lollipop Forest" is a wholesome family show -- and it's value was diminished when the Big Bad Lollipop ripoff was exposed to "unwholesome language and sexual innuendo."

FYI -- during the "South Park" episode ... Lollipop King gets choked out by a Storm Trooper ... witnesses the carnage of a suicide bomber ... and gets a front row seat as Kyle performs a sexual act of an oral nature on Cartman's nether region (... it was a crazy episode).

Indeed, almost as crazy as Wardlaw insisting that his character was the basis for the Lollipop King, seeing as how the two characters look nothing alike (beyond being lollipops, of course). In fact, the absurdity of this claim in an episode where the disputed character, which South Park sources indicate is an original, is shown alongside such obvious non-original characters like storm troopers and Snarf, is almost too much to handle.
South Park's Lollipop King


and... the Big Bad Lollipop. I know I can hardly tell the difference. Bizarrely, this isn't the first time that someone has suggested that South Park copied The Lollipop King. A group called TLG Media put out a satirical video with its own Lollipop King, and when South Park came out with its own, they took it (mostly) in stride, first pointing out their logical and emotional reactions: "My common sense says 'No, anybody could come up with a 'lollipop king'' but my ego says 'Those motherfuckers ripped us off! Fucking Motherfuckers!'" But then concluded that "ours is way better because he's insane." But not insane enough to actually think the South Park guys copied him.

And beyond the question of any actual copying that might have occurred (a dubious claim, at best), this is yet another case that demonstrates the overblown nature of tarnishment accusations. Can anyone with a straight face say they really think that The Lollipop Forest (whatever the hell that is; I couldn't find any IMDB credits) had its value tarnished by South Park's Imagination Land trilogy? Unless you're in the middle of one epically large stroke, the only sensible answer is "no". Hopefully, this suit gets punted out of the legal system post-haste.

Filed Under: big bad lollipop, copyright, lollipop king, lollipops, south park